| Author |
Message |
Emr
Registered user
Username: Emr
Post Number: 6
Registered: 7-2007
| | Posted on Friday, July 27, 2007 - 12:13 am: |     |
Gilbert,
It is nice to be here. You all make me feel welcome. Your hunch is correct: Clifford never responded.
Eduardo |
Asurprise
Registered user
Username: Asurprise
Post Number: 85
Registered: 7-2007
| | Posted on Friday, July 27, 2007 - 2:11 pm: | |
Hi Eduardo, welcome  I wrote a letter to Clifford Goldstein too, about the Sabbath, but he never responded to that either.
Dianne |
Larry
Registered user
Username: Larry
Post Number: 43
Registered: 5-2007
| | Posted on Friday, July 27, 2007 - 4:33 pm: | |
So egw only wanted to add the word "older". Come on people, aren't you going to let her do that?
Proverbs 30:5-6 states:
Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.
I guess we should not allow her to do it then! |
Larry
Registered user
Username: Larry
Post Number: 44
Registered: 5-2007
| | Posted on Friday, July 27, 2007 - 4:35 pm: | |
Eduardo, what took you so long to join here? (joking) |
Jeremiah
Registered user
Username: Jeremiah
Post Number: 259
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 27, 2007 - 7:56 pm: | |
The idea that Joseph had children before Mary came along is older than SDAism; actually it dates to around the middle of the 2nd century at the latest;
quote:The Protevangelion of James, also sometimes known as the Gospel of James or the Infancy Gospel of James, is generally dated to the 2nd century AD. It is an apocryphal gospel that was widely read but never accepted into the New Testament Canon.
The document presents itself as written by James: "I, James, wrote this history in Jerusalem." Thus the purported author is James the Just, the brother of Jesus. Over one hundred and forty Greek manuscripts containing the Gospel of James have been discovered. The echoes and parallels of the Old Testament appear to derive from its use of Septuagint phraseology. As far as content, it dedicates a significant portion not to the circumstances of Jesus' birth, but to the birth and life of Mary. This is the earliest text that explicitly claims that Joseph was a widower, with children, at the time that Mary was entrusted to his care. The first mention of the Protoevangelion is by Origen, who refers to the work as the Book of James. Many critics feel that the work is a composite of other works or existing traditions.
The Gospel of James was translated into Syriac, Ethiopic, Coptic, Georgian, Old Slavonic, Armenian, Arabic, Irish, and Latin. No early Latin versions are known, but it is relegated to the apocrypha in the Gelasian decretal. As with the canonical gospels, the vast majority of the manuscripts come from the tenth century or later. The earliest known manuscript of the text, a papyrus dating to the third or early fourth century, was found in 1958; it is kept in the Bodmer Library, Geneva (Papyrus Bodmer 5). Of the surviving Greek manuscripts, the fullest surviving text is a tenth century codex in the Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris (Paris 1454).
-http://orthodoxwiki.org/Protoevangelion_of_James
Jeremiah |
Jorgfe
Registered user
Username: Jorgfe
Post Number: 471
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Friday, July 27, 2007 - 9:37 pm: | |
As noted above
quote:A step sibling (step brother or step sister) is a sibling with whom an individual bears no blood or equivalent adoptive relation, and is related by the marriage or relationship of one parent of the individual to one parent of the sibling;
I guess I don't see anything incompatible with the idea that Joseph could have been married before, and that Jesus could have had "step brothers" (as defined above) from Joseph's previous marriage.
Since a lot of what Ellen White wrote came from others, if they did a lot of research (as Alfred Edersheim did) there is no reason why contemporary writings could not have shed light on similar possibilities. For example, people quote Josephus all the time as a historical authority. While there are conflicting opinions about everything historical, it would seem worthy of consideration in this case, unless there is solid evidence to the contrary.
I have observed an interesting pattern. First let me say that with Ellen's 6-1/2 feet of plagarized writings there is obviously a lot of speculation and embellishment.
Our past Adventist backgrounds have conditioned us to subliminally think we have answers for everything. When I started attending non-Adventist fellowships I found it refreshing to acknowledge that perhaps there were some things that the Bible didn't address in detail, if at all. Adventists have a tendency to "make every point count", and we don't seem to loose that as "formers". I know that here it is just a discussion point, and yet at MacGregor Ministries it is posted as a "proof", and presented in what I consider to be a "patronizing" way that, in my opinion, actually discredits MacGregor Ministries.
There are so many obvious points where Ellen White had problems, that I sometimes think we set ourselves up in the same way that Adventists do, by "going out on a limb" to "make points" where the evidence is not clear. It becomes a contest for "quantity", instead of "quality".
The White Estate, for example addresses many of these criticisms, and to the extent that Ellen White was nebulous, if we paint her into one corner, the defensive Adventist can just as easily reposition her into the "corner" of their choice. The Adventist naturally turns to the White Estate for a plausible answer, and given the nebulous nature of her statement, see their response as of possible merit.
I think in approaching Adventists, it would serve us best if we identify and avoid those nebulous areas that can be defended with muultiple interpretations, and really drive home the points that are irrefutable. In the "courtroom" of public opinion that will give us the most credibility when talking with Adventists. Do you know what I mean?
This is not a "point game" where we try to see who can score the most points. Even 25 "rock-solid" totally indefensible points like the shut-door date-setting, or removing the Holy Spirit from the Seal of God, or whether people can say that they "are saved", the 1844/IJ baloney, or how Adventism began, are worth so much more, than minor subjects. We would do well to identify and focus on those points that are least defensible. There are some points that are so clear in the Bible, that it is extremely difficult for the White Estate to build a case.
I am not criticizing what we discuss here in FAF. I am just thinking "out loud" about how to best break through the Adventist "bubble" when dialoging with them.
Gilbert Jorgensen |
Emr
Registered user
Username: Emr
Post Number: 9
Registered: 7-2007
| | Posted on Friday, July 27, 2007 - 11:09 pm: | |
I'm not surprised, Dianne, that Goldstein never responded. Although he adamantly said critics should be responded to, I wonder if he has ever done it, other than by writing absurd books.
Larry, believe it or not, I tried registering for this FA forum many months ago, but something must have been wrong with my registration request. Only on my third attempt did my application succeed.
Oh, and Gilbert, I totally agree. The issue of the precise family relationship between Jesus and his 'brothers' is a minor one. SDA apologists can resort to NT Apocrypha to defend Ellen's idea that they were Joseph's elder sons from a previous marriage, even though the Bible evidence seems compelling that, as far as the law was concerned, they were probably Jesus' cousins.
However, the cultic nature of SDAism can be best demonstrated going to the core of its doctrines, and that is, undoubtedly, the 1844 stuff. Naturally, that horrendous investigative judgment theology taints other doctrines as well, transfiguring even the least objectionable into a heretical contortion of Bible truth.
Eduardo |
Larry
Registered user
Username: Larry
Post Number: 46
Registered: 5-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, July 28, 2007 - 10:03 am: | |
I posted the following at: http://64.226.233.122/discus/messages/11/5169.html?1185562708#POST77891 yesterday, but it may complement Eduardo's post of 11:09 pm
sda's run immediately to Leviticus and the old testament to prove what all services are going on in the heavenly temple since 1844. If they would just settle down and read the book of Hebrews, they would discover that Lord Jesus has become a priest in the order of Melchizidek, NOT LEVI, not Aaron. We know well how Levitical priests functioned, but we know not much about the Melchizidekian priesthood, except that the Son sat down at the right hand of His Father until his enemies will be made his footstool.
So sda's claim they know all about what is going on in the heavenly temple (1844 onward). I maintain they know nothing about what is going on.
To say that the scapegoat scenario has something to do with the Melchizidekian priesthood is adding to the Bible and Proverbs 30:6 states:
Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar. |
Jorgfe
Registered user
Username: Jorgfe
Post Number: 477
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, July 28, 2007 - 12:11 pm: | |
Larry,
Wow. That is a really profound point!
Gilbert Jorgensen |
Jeremiah
Registered user
Username: Jeremiah
Post Number: 260
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, July 28, 2007 - 12:47 pm: | |
One curious thing about Melchizidek is that he used bread and wine in his priestly work. See Genesis 14:18. Seems that Jesus used bread and wine at one point in his work as well. And then the bread and wine became one of the Christian mysteries.
Jeremiah |
Jorgfe
Registered user
Username: Jorgfe
Post Number: 479
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, July 28, 2007 - 1:19 pm: | |
Jeremiah, I love it! You come up with some of the most insightful observations. I had never noticed that -- the same symbols that are the "Rememberance" symbols of the New Covenant. ("This do in rememberance of Me.") How fascinating!
And Hebrews 7 also said that the High Priest of the Melchizidek priesthood had no beginning and no end.
quote:This Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God Most High. He met Abraham returning from the defeat of the kings and blessed him, and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. First, his name means king of righteousness; then also, king of Salem means king of peace. Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest for ever. Heb 7:1-3 NIV
We know of only one Person like that, don't we?
Gilbert Jorgensen |
Jeremiah
Registered user
Username: Jeremiah
Post Number: 261
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, July 28, 2007 - 2:54 pm: | |
quote:Hbr 8:1 Now of the things which we have spoken [this is] the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.
3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore [it is] of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.
An interesting word in this passage is "minister". It is the Greek word leitourgos. We still have that word in English; it's "liturgy". In Greek this passage calls Jesus our "liturgist".
You can see what this is like in this beyond-the-physical look at Christian worship in Revelation;
quote:5:6 And I looked, and behold, in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as though it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent out into all the earth. 7 Then He came and took the scroll out of the right hand of Him who sat on the throne.
8 Now when He had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each having a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. 9 And they sang a new song, saying:
"You are worthy to take the scroll,
And to open its seals;
For You were slain,
And have redeemed us to God by Your blood
Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation,
10 And have made us kings and priests to our God;
And we shall reign on the earth."
11 Then I looked, and I heard the voice of many angels around the throne, the living creatures, and the elders; and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands, 12 saying with a loud voice:
"Worthy is the Lamb who was slain
To receive power and riches and wisdom,
And strength and honor and glory and blessing!"
13 And every creature which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, I heard saying:
"Blessing and honor and glory and power
Be to Him who sits on the throne,
And to the Lamb, forever and ever!"
14 Then the four living creatures said, "Amen!" And the twenty-four elders fell down and worshiped Him who lives forever and ever.
Jesus is God, priest, and sacrifice.
You can see what this is like in person at an Eastern Orthodox church. It might take a few times to absorb it but you will see a whole new picture of Hebrews and Revelation.
Jeremiah |
Grace_alone
Registered user
Username: Grace_alone
Post Number: 709
Registered: 6-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, July 28, 2007 - 3:10 pm: | |
I've done a study on Melchizedek and I really believe he could be a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ. He and Abraham had the bread and wine, and it's interesting that Abraham gave Melchizedek a tenth of his "booty". (I don't want to start a tithe discussion - it's just interesting to note).
This is from Psalm 110. David is writing about Jesus -
Psalm 110
Of David. A psalm.
1 The LORD says to my Lord:
"Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet."
2 The LORD will extend your mighty scepter from Zion;
you will rule in the midst of your enemies.
3 Your troops will be willing
on your day of battle.
Arrayed in holy majesty,
from the womb of the dawn
you will receive the dew of your youth. [a]
4 The LORD has sworn
and will not change his mind:
"You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek."
5 The Lord is at your right hand;
he will crush kings on the day of his wrath.
6 He will judge the nations, heaping up the dead
and crushing the rulers of the whole earth.
7 He will drink from a brook beside the way [b] ;
therefore he will lift up his head.
Leigh Anne
(Message edited by grace_alone on July 28, 2007) |
Mwh
Registered user
Username: Mwh
Post Number: 652
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, July 28, 2007 - 3:29 pm: | |
Dear brothers and sisters,
grace and peace from our Lord Jesus Christ.
Found the following quite interesting:
"Melchizedek Was a Semitic Canaanite Priest-King
14:18 And Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought forth bread and wine….
Hebrews 7:6 says “he whose descent is not counted from them.” Although much speculation exists, the text itself gives no evidence that Melchizedek was anything other than a self-appointed and self-named pagan priest-king similar to hundreds of others found in his era and in his vicinity around 2000 B. C.
The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, “The name of this mysterious person means either ‘king of righteousness,’ or ‘my king is righteousness,’ or ‘my king is Zedek.’ Zedek is the Hebrew word for ‘righteousness’ and also the name of a Canaanite deity. Melchizedek was the priest-king of Salem, which is the shortened form of ‘Urusalem,’ ‘city of peace,’ identified with Jerusalem. ‘Shalom’ is the Hebrew word for ‘peace’ and ‘Shalem’ probably was the Canaanite god of peace. This kindly priest-king, recognizing Abram’s nobility and worth, supplied refreshment and sustenance for the weary warrior and his men. These gifts were tokens of friendship and hospitality.”[3]
The preceding quotation opened my eyes to do extensive research on the ignored Phoenician and Canaanite pantheon. Oddly, this statement comes from a commentary re-published for Southwestern Company (Southern Baptist) by Moody Press in 1968. The chapter on Genesis is written by Kyle M. Yates, Sr., Th. D., Ph. D., Professor of Old Testament, Baylor University, Waco, Texas, which is Southern Baptist. If, as Yates claims, Melchizedek worshiped the Canaanite gods, Zedek and Salem, then, logically, El Elyon must have also been a Canaanite god!
The New Bible Commentary: “There is nothing mysterious about him in spite of the interpretation placed by some on Heb. vii, 3. He was king of some Semitic clan, which still occupied Salem, before the Jebusites captured it. There was never an utter extinction of the knowledge of God in the world, and here, too, God had preserved some knowledge of Himself.”[4]
The Matthew Henry Commentary: “The rabbin, and most of our rabbinical writers, conclude that Melchizedek was Shem the son of Noah, who was king and priest to those who descended from him, according to the patriarchal model. But this is not at all probable…. The most commonly received opinion is that Melchizedek was a Canaanitish prince, that reigned in Salem, and kept up the true religion there; but, if so, why his name should occur here only in all the story of Abram, and why Abram should have altars of his own and not attend the altars of his neighbor Melchizedek who was greater than he, seem unaccountable.”[5]
Melchizedek Could Not Have Been Pre-Incarnate Christ
If Melchizedek had been a pre-incarnate manifestation of Jesus Christ before his virgin birth, and if Jesus Christ had previously lived on earth as a priest-king, such an event would have rivaled the importance of the Christ-event! However, the Christ-event, and not Melchizedek, is when God became man and personally lived among his created beings.
It is very important to understand the difference between the historical Melchizedek of Genesis 14 and the prophetic and typical Melchizedek of Psalm 110 and Hebrews 7. “Negative” features of the historical Melchizedek are reversed to become “positive” features of Jesus Christ, the typical Melchizedek, in Psalm 110 and Hebrews 5-7. For the full discussion of this, see the comments at Hebrews 7:1-3 in a later chapter.
In addition, if Melchizedek had been a true worshiper of Yahweh, then he, and not Abraham, would have been God’s choice for starting a chosen nation. Melchizedek was already an established priest-king in a large city in Canaan! However, such logic destroys the entire Bible emphasis and need of Abraham! It was precisely because God could not find a man of faith in Canaan like that of Abraham that he sought out Abraham in Ur and Haran.
Who was Melchizedek? The answer to this question varies almost as much as the number of theologians who discuss him. The impossibility of correctly identifying the historical Melchizedek leads to his typical use by the writer of Hebrews. However, for the purpose of this discussion on tithing, there is simply not enough evidence to unreservedly claim that his reception of tithes must be interpreted as positive proof that New Covenant Christians should tithe. If God had wanted this truth revealed, then God would have certainly emphasized it in the New Covenant, especially in passages like Hebrews 7 and First Corinthians 9. Yet neither Moses in the law nor any New Testament writer used Melchizedek as an example of Hebrew or Christian tithing.
Melchizedek’s Jerusalem Was a Semitic Canaanite City
Although we subconsciously want to associate Melchizedek’s Jerusalem with that of David’s Jerusalem over one thousand years later, this is simply not the case. The Tell Mardikh tablets (c. 2300 B.C.) contain the name “Urusalimum” and hundreds of other places and personal names in the region. The name probably originally meant “founded by the god Shalem,” a goddess (of dawn?) of the Amorites, a consort of Zedek, that is, Jupiter.
When the Jebusites arrived they did not select the best location because the higher place above Kidron was already occupied by a Canaanite temple which the Jebusites did not want to displace. Archaeologists claim that the Jebusite fort dated back to at least 2000 B.C. which is the time period of Abraham’s tribute to Melchizedek.[6]
Since the name of “Jerusalem” was known prior to the Jebusite occupation, it probably originally referred to the high hill of Melchizedek’s temple beside the Valley of Zedek. The Jebusites are mentioned as early as Numbers 13:29. They called their city “Jebus” or “Jebusi.” David captured it and named it “The City of David” (Josh. 15:8; 18:16, 28; Judg. 19:10; 2 Sam. 5:8; 1 Chron. 11:4). Evidently the original name of “Jerusalem” regained prominence under David. Again, Shalim was the name of a Canaanite god.
The point of this discussion is that the place which Melchizedek called “Salem” was his pagan Canaanite residence and was not at that time God’s holy city. Even the term “Zion” was originally a Jebusite name for their fort (2 Sam. 5:7).
“Most High God” Was Also a Common Canaanite Title for Both “El” and “Baal”
14:18…and he was the priest of the most high God.
14:19 And he blessed him, and said, Blessed is Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth;
14:20 and blessed is the most high God, which has delivered your enemies into your hand.
A seminary textbook on the principles of interpretation reminds us, “A good interpretation should not depend so heavily on inferences that it cannot stand on its own without the help of theoretical construct…. Did our theory about the historical situation control our reading of the text, or did the text itself suggest the theory?”[7] Relevant to this chapter, does the common conclusion that Melchizedek’s “Most High God” must be Jehovah rest on solid historical proof, or does it rest on the pre-conceived ideas of what interpreters and commentators would like it to mean? It would also be wrong to use Hebrew 7’s “typical” application to change the “historical” meaning of Genesis 14.
It is extremely important for a correct understanding of Genesis 14 to realize that “Most High God,” or “God the Most High,” (Hebrew: “El Elyon”) was a common Canaanite designation for Baal, and even his father, El. Again, neither sentence-structure nor context require this identification to point exclusively to Jehovah, as most commentators conclude. It is unfortunate that “El Elyon” has been “translated,” rather than merely being “transliterated,” and left as “El Elyon.” This error easily confuses the reader and encourages the reader towards a conclusion which is not apparent in the phrase itself. While a casual Canaanite reader would quickly identify the phrase with “El” or “Baal,” a casual contemporary westerner would conclude that the term identifies Jehovah, or Yahweh. A comparative problem has been eliminated by Bible translators who have wisely chosen to retain the name “Baal,” instead of translating it as “Lord.”
Fausset’s Bible Dictionary comments on the name “El Elyon” by saying, “The Phoenicians so named their chief god according to Sanchoniathon in Enseb. Praep. Event., doubtless from primitive revelation.”[8]
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: “Like El Elyon, “Baal” (Babylonian “Bel”), the supreme Canaanite god, was also called “Lord,” “master,” and “possessor of heaven and earth.”[9] At least from Melchizedek’s point of view, “Baal” is equally a logical, though usually ignored, meaning of “El Elyon.” To further confuse the names, there are also sources which claim that “Elyon” was the grandfather of “El” and that an eighth century Aramaic treaty stele even describes “El” and “Elyon” as two distinct deities. I encourage anybody who is interested in this study to make a trip to a large library and research the religions of Phoenicia and Canaan.
Daniel, the book of Gentile prophecy, refers to God in Aramaic almost exclusively as “the Most High God,” or “Most High” (Dan. 3:26; 4:17, 24, 25, 32, 34; 5:18, 21). Lucifer schemed to sit upon the throne of “the Most High” (Isa. 14:13-14). “The Most High God” is a name that relates to ALL nations, ALL heaven, and ALL earth—not just Israel. (Compare 2 Sam. 22:14; Ps. 7:17; 18:13; 21:7; 47:2; 83:18; 87:5; 91:1-2, 9; 92:1, 8; 97:9).
“El Elyon” Could Betray Melchizedek as Ignorant of Yahweh
First, Melchizedek did not know God as “Yahweh,” that is, “LORD,” or “Jehovah.” It is important to recognize that Melchizedek called himself the priest of “El Elyon,” “Most High God” in verses 18-20 and did NOT call himself the priest of “Yahweh, the Most High God,” as did Abraham to the king of Sodom in verse 22.
Those special to God knew His name! “Yahweh,” the “LORD,” is the special name through which God first revealed himself in Genesis 2:4 to Adam and Eve. God spoke to Cain as Yahweh in 4:6, to Noah in 5:29; 6:3; 7:1; 8:20 and 9:26; to Nimrod in 10:8-9; to those at the tower of Babel in 11:5; and to Abram in 12:1. The name, “Yahweh,” occurs over 160 times in Genesis alone. Worshipers of all ages, especially those in Abraham’s time, were very particular about knowing the NAME of the god to whom they prayed. Because of this Scriptural fact, it is almost inconceivable that Melchizedek could have been a true priest of the true God and yet not know his special name! Therefore, I believe that Melchizedek’s ignorance about the true name of Yahweh should disqualify him from being one who carried the name from Noah’s time.
Second, Melchizedek might have been identifying himself as a Semitic Canaanite by calling himself priest of “El Elyon,” “Most High God.” As just mentioned, this reference, “Most High God,” was almost universally used by non-Hebrew Semitic people to designate their concept of “Baal,” or even his father “El,” the bull-god and father of the Canaanite pantheon.
“El,” the Hebrew word most often translated as “God” in our Bibles, is a generic reference word and is not necessarily a “name.” “El” can just as easily mean “god” with a little “g,” “the might of nature,” or even “an angel” (Exod. 34:14; Deut. 32:12; Judg. 9:46; Isa. 44:10). “El” (Strong’s 410) and its root words, uwl (Strong’s 193) and ah-yil (Strong’s 352), all basically mean “might” and “strength.” As previously mentioned, any Canaanite would immediately associate “El Elyon” with either “El” or “Baal”—instead of the Hebrew’s Yahweh.[10]
Until Genesis 14, God had identified himself as “Elohim” and “Yahweh.” He subsequently identified himself as “Almighty” in 17:1; 35:11; 43:14; and 48:3. God referred to himself in Genesis as “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” By revelation, the non-Hebrew prophet, Balaam, identified Israel’s God as Yahweh, the Almighty, and Most High in Numbers 24:13-16. While referring to all nations, Moses called God “Most High” in Deuteronomy 32:8. The point is that, while he is the true Most High, God did not prefer to be identified by El Elyon in the Pentateuch! Although Genesis 14, Numbers 24, and Deuteronomy 32 are the only three uses of “Most High” in the Pentateuch, this name for God would not appear again for over one thousand years when David uttered it in Second Samuel 22:14—after his capture of Jerusalem from the Jebusites in 5:7.
In other words, except for Abraham’s declaration that his Most High was actually “Yahweh, LORD” in Genesis 14:22 and the reference by Moses to the “nations” in Deuteronomy 32:8, this name for God, El Elyon, is of very little importance to the patriarchs like Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses. When David did begin using El Elyon again, it was usually prefixed by “LORD.” Thus Melchizedek’s use of Most High for his god likely betrayed himself as a Canaanite who did not know God’s most special covenant name, Yahweh.
Third, Scripture does not tell us that Abraham revealed the name of the true Most High God to Melchizedek. The key thought and climax of the narrative is found in verses 21-24, not in verses 18-20 which receive too much attention. Why? Because God’s “champion” at this point in the Old Testament is Abraham, and not Melchizedek! Although Abraham must have certainly spoken to Melchizedek, not one spoken word from Abraham to Melchizedek is recorded in Scripture! Odd indeed if God considered their meeting so important.
In summary, the great revelation that Abraham’s Most High was actually “Yahweh” was not made until he defended his actions towards the king of Sodom in verse 22. This omission of “Yahweh” concerning Melchizedek is important. Those who rush to make Genesis 14 teach tithing miss this point that, as priest of the “Most High” (El Elyon), Melchizedek did not know God as “LORD” (Yahweh, Jehovah), the covenant-God of Abraham and Israel. He was not priest of the “LORD Most High,” and it was only Abraham who identified God as “LORD” Most High. (Note: English Bibles use all capitals for ‘LORD’ when the Hebrew word is ‘Yahweh, Jehovah.’) [11]"
http://home.earthlink.net/~russkellyphd/id12.html
In Him,
Martin |
Grace_alone
Registered user
Username: Grace_alone
Post Number: 710
Registered: 6-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, July 28, 2007 - 4:47 pm: | |
Martin, WOW that was a looooooong one. I don't have a lot of time left to sort through it all, but a couple of things though - if Melchizedek could not really be traced by historians, the thing that comes to my mind is that perhaps he didn't really exist for very long. He came without a geneology and then disappeared. Which is why I've heard that it's a possibility that Christ *appeared* in that form. I could be totally wrong or way off. Also, why would David, then the writer of Hebrews compare Jesus to a pagan priest-king? I don't quite understand that.
Anyway, it's just something that's interesting.
Thanks Friend!
Leigh Anne |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 6418
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 28, 2007 - 8:40 pm: | |
I believe that we have to hold this "living metaphor" of Abraham and Melchizedek loosely. We really don't know who he was, and we really don't know, either if he was a God-worshiper or not. It is possible that he was, however--Job, who appears to have been a contemporary of Abraham (or somewhere near his time) was a God-honoring pre-Israelite who also functioned as a priest on behalf of his children, offering sacrifices for them in case they had sinned. It would not be unheard of for Melchizedek to have been a God-worshiper.
Whatever the case, Hebrews explains that the whole event with Abraham and Mel was a shadow of Jesus. Since Abraham is the father of all the faithful who belong to God, everything about his recorded life is a shadow and picture of salvation and Jesus, showing us in real time in a human life what it meant to fear God, to be subject to God's will, to live faithfully, and to show us that saving faith is dependent ONLY upon God, not upon a specific lineage of priests.
Our Priest pre-exsists us and Aaron, and He lives forever. Abraham's response to Mel, we find out in Hebrews, was confirming before the reality happened that we are to respond to Jesus, not to the Levites, in the New Covenant. Abraham's life pre-figured the New Covenant, not the Old. He was the father of the patriarchs whose offspring received the Old Covenant, but Abraham foreshadowed how both Jews and Gentiles would live in the NC.
Amazing!
Colleen |
Jorgfe
Registered user
Username: Jorgfe
Post Number: 480
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, July 28, 2007 - 10:39 pm: | |
Martin, I really like your greeting!
You have a lot of great material that provides plenty of food for a long time! Thank you for your hard work.
There are so many thoughts that come out of the "closet" that it will take me some time to sort out which ones are from Ellen White and which ones are Biblical.
These forums are really a wonderful place to discover that!
Gilbert Jorgensen |
Larry
Registered user
Username: Larry
Post Number: 51
Registered: 5-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, July 29, 2007 - 8:59 am: | |
What got me started on this Melchizedek bender is that I decided to read the sanctuary chapter in the book "seventh day adventists believe..." authorized by the general conference of sda's and printed by the review and herald in 1988. (Merely to see what sorts of errors I could spot)
In the front portion of the book, page v, they mention that they had a select committe of 194 person to ensure this volumes accuracy. Among the names printed are:
Neal C. Wilson
Sam Bacchiocchi
Cliff Goldstein
RR Hegstad (relative of mine)
Jan Paulsen
Brad Thorp (Hope TV channel)
Anyway, they want you to have all confidence that this volume is the bees knees cuz they had so many people, special people, working on it.
The sanctuary chapter is the only chapter I have read in its entirety. I am sure the other chapters have their own major flaws, but I chose to focus on this one.
What I found on page 316 really shocked me. Quoting exactly it says:
"The Levitical priesthood illustrates the saving ministry Christ has carried on since His death. Our High Priest, serving "at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens," functions as a "Minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle which the Lord erected, and not man" (Heb. 8:1,2)."
I saw that paragraph and immediately knew how they were so certain of all the temple compartments and veils, etc in 1844. They merely carry forward all Levitical traditions, violating what Hebrews states about Jesus' ministry being after the order of Melchizedek. In doing so, sda's are preaching yet a different gospel. And where do they get the authority to do so? The answer is pretty obvious, yet I found another article on the internet by someone called PG Damsteegt (professor at andrews university) that says those who would become sda's "deliberately departed" from a traditional understanding of Hebrews!
Also, the portion that reads: serving "at the right hand... is totally out of context. Scripture states that Jesus SAT at the right hand. sda's want to insert the idea of "serving".
So there you have it. Just deliberately depart from whatever portion of the Bible you want, have somebody hallucinate and twitch and say you are correct, then you will have a "lesser light".
Is this really the absolute best 194 handpicked people can do? This is just awful theology. |
Mwh
Registered user
Username: Mwh
Post Number: 655
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, July 29, 2007 - 10:15 am: | |
Hi Gilbert, thanks, all the glory to God! Also Russell, did the work, I just cited his work, check out all of it here:
http://home.earthlink.net/~russkellyphd/id12.html
In His awesome grace,
Martin |
Magpie
Registered user
Username: Magpie
Post Number: 22
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, July 29, 2007 - 3:48 pm: | |
Jerimiah,
I have always believed that when the bible mentions the brothers of Jesus, they were the brothers birthed by Mary AFTER the birth of Jesus.
They all were born to Joseph and Mary. |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 1993
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, July 29, 2007 - 5:37 pm: | |
Magpie, I agree with you. I think the Bible is pretty clear on this, as that John MacArthur quote above pointed out so well.
Jeremy |
|
